Gay Rights & Conservative Politics

No doubt about it, conservatives have been somewhat overwro0ught on this issue, and less articulate than they might be. If the question before us were as simple as whether homosexuality ought to be a crime, I think the confusion might be dispelled quickly. For my part, I agree with Mr. Real—and with Mr. Kilpatrick, who presumably hasn’t changed his mind since 1965—that it should not be punished with criminal sanctions. Abstractly speaking, and waiving considerations of liberty and prudence, it probably makes more sense to outlaw fornication and adultery (which after all lead to bastardy and abortion) than sodomy. But we aren’t here to discuss that. For better or worse, the government has now left the bedroom, if only to meddle in the kitchen. Its working philosophy seems to be, “Sodomy, sí—saccharin, no.”

I take my own bearings in this matter from personal experience. I remember, for instance, an English instructor, now dead, whom I knew in college. I have no warrant to drag his remains out of the closet, but it was widely understood that Harry (not his real name) was a homosexual. He was a good-natured, witty, effeminate man, a bit vain perhaps, loquacious, a histrionic mimic, who affected a lisp; I think everyone who knew him liked him well enough. A close friend of mine shared an office with him and was very fond of him; and now and again Bob (his real name) would make some light allusion to Harry’s peculiar taste. No malice in it; he wouldn’t have let Harry hear it, though, for the world. The kind of little joke you make about a friend’s foibles: affectionate, but realistic: as you might smile about his drinking or his improvidence. Bob’s way of regarding Harry always struck me as the very model of a sane and civilized attitude. He had his own standards, but no censorious eagerness to assert them unnecessarily at the expense of others’ feelings.

JS

About the Author

Joseph Sobran

No doubt about it, conservatives have been somewhat overwro0ught on this issue, and less articulate than they might be. If the question before us were as simple as whether homosexuality ought to be a crime, I think the confusion might be dispelled quickly. For my part, I agree with Mr. Real—and with Mr. Kilpatrick, who presumably hasn’t changed his mind since 1965—that it should not be punished with criminal sanctions. Abstractly speaking, and waiving considerations of liberty and prudence, it probably makes more sense to outlaw fornication and adultery (which after all lead to bastardy and abortion) than sodomy. But we aren’t here to discuss that. For better or worse, the government has now left the bedroom, if only to meddle in the kitchen. Its working philosophy seems to be, “Sodomy, sí—saccharin, no.”

I take my own bearings in this matter from personal experience. I remember, for instance, an English instructor, now dead, whom I knew in college. I have no warrant to drag his remains out of the closet, but it was widely understood that Harry (not his real name) was a homosexual. He was a good-natured, witty, effeminate man, a bit vain perhaps, loquacious, a histrionic mimic, who affected a lisp; I think everyone who knew him liked him well enough. A close friend of mine shared an office with him and was very fond of him; and now and again Bob (his real name) would make some light allusion to Harry’s peculiar taste. No malice in it; he wouldn’t have let Harry hear it, though, for the world. The kind of little joke you make about a friend’s foibles: affectionate, but realistic: as you might smile about his drinking or his improvidence. Bob’s way of regarding Harry always struck me as the very model of a sane and civilized attitude. He had his own standards, but no censorious eagerness to assert them unnecessarily at the expense of others’ feelings.